Obama On Afghanistan: I Will Not ‘Simply Assume That More Troops Always Result In An Improved Situation’
Obama On Afghanistan: I Will Not ‘Simply Assume That More Troops Always Result In An Improved Situation’
Since President Obama announced his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan last week, he and his administration have been careful to distinguish it from President Bush’s surge in Iraq. Today on Fox News Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stressed that the focus of the mission in Afghanistan has been “narrowed”: “I think what we need to focus on…is making headway and reversing the Taliban’s momentum and strengthening the Afghan army and police, and really going after Al Qaeda.”
Today in an interview with CBS’s Bob Schieffer, Obama underscored this point. He pointed out that the reason he has increased troops in Afghanistan is because levels there are “greatly underresourced.” However, he is not going to “simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation”:
OBAMA: What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation. [...]
But just because we needed to ramp up from the greatly underresourced levels that we had doesn’t automatically mean that, if this strategy doesn’t work, that what’s needed is even more troops.
There may be a point of diminishing returns in terms of troop levels. We’ve got to also make sure that our civilian efforts, our diplomatic efforts and our development efforts are just as robustly encouraged.
Obama added that it this strategy doesn’t work, the answer won’t necessarily be more troops. “It’s not going to be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources,” he said. Watch it:
The 17,000 additional U.S. troops will be focused on fighting the Taliban in the south and east, allowing the U.S. to “partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border.” Later this spring, Obama will also be sending another 4,000 U.S. troops to help train Afghan security forces.
While the increase in U.S. forces has received the majority of media attention, Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy is actually a “comprehensive civil-political effort to improve basic services, accountability, and overall governance in order to defeat the hard-core Taliban and al Qaeda fighters at the heart of the insurgency,” as CAP’s Peter Juul has written. The President has also ordered an increase in humanitarian aid and civilian support, recognizing that the effort there cannot be won solely by military means.
Transcript:
SCHIEFFER: Are you concerned at all — because some people say the more troops you put in, it’s just going to inflame the situation; it’s going to make it worse. What do you say to them?
OBAMA: I’m very mindful of that. Look, I — I’m enough of a student of history to know that the United States, in Vietnam and other countries, other epochs of history have overextended to the point where they were severely weakened.
And the history in Afghanistan obviously shows that that country has not been very favorably disposed towards foreign intervention. And that’s why a central part of our strategy is to train the Afghan National Army so that they are taking the lead, increasingly, to deal with extremists in their area.
That’s been one of the few success stories we’ve seen over the last several years, is the Afghan National Army actually has great credibility. They’re effective fighters. We need to grow that. And that’s part of the reason why we want to make sure that there are trainers there.
But the last point I would make, you know, a request was made for increased troop levels in Afghanistan. I have already authorized 17,000. We’re now adding 4,000 trainers, specifically designed to train Afghan security forces.
But what I’ve also said to the Department of Defense and what I will say to the American public is that, you know, we now have resourced properly this strategy. It’s not going to be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources. We’ve just got to make sure that we are focused on achieving what we need to achieve with the resources we have.
SCHIEFFER: What you seem to be saying is we have to win; there’s no choice here. So does that mean, if more is needed; if the commanders come back to you and say, we may need more troops, Mr. President, to do this, you’re going to be ready to do that?
OBAMA: What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation.
I think there was a good argument, after us scrubbing this very hard and talking to a lot of our allies in the region, including the Pakistan and Afghanistan governments, the Europeans and our other NATO allies, that this was the best strategy.
But just because we needed to ramp up from the greatly underresourced levels that we had doesn’t automatically mean that, if this strategy doesn’t work, that what’s needed is even more troops.
There may be a point of diminishing returns in terms of troop levels. We’ve got to also make sure that our civilian efforts, our diplomatic efforts and our development efforts are just as robustly encouraged.
And, so for example, in the budget that I’ve presented to Congress, I’ve said we’ve got to increase foreign aid in Afghanistan and we’ve got to increase foreign aid in Pakistan. And I’m going to be really pushing Congress, because sometimes foreign aid is a, you know, juicy target, particularly during tough times.
I’m going to tell them, this is central to our strategy. And it can save lives and troops if we properly execute it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Following the lead of the republicans, the media is labeling this Obama’s Viet Nam.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pmWe will likely never “win” in Afghanistan by traditional methods so embraced by the RNC, but to label this as Obama’s war is to oversimplify a very complicated metter, and it assumes that Obama is not a student of history and cannot think for himself.
They are so accustomed to the previous president who operated at the level of a 10th grader, that they believe Obama is of the same incurious pool.
While I am gravely concerned about our mission in Afghanistan, at this point, I am willing to see what develops in the coming months before passing judgment.
Where were the media and the republicans when Bush took us into Iraq – or when Bush squandered our budget surplus?
They gave him a honeymoon that lasted nearly his entire term; in Obama’s case, it lasted about 7 days.
where have i heard that before…
hopefully, since this isn’t being run by an incompetent administration, this training will actually be effective.
but im not holding my breath
March 29th, 2009 at 1:23 pmFinally! A sensible and comprehensive strategy to defeat the Taliban and stabilize Afganistan.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pmThis president clearly has a BRAIN! He has proved to be a man who exercise common sense combined with logic and rational thinking. I only wish that he had been the president back in 2000 or 2004. The damage and destructions caused by George W. Bush are way too much for anyone to correct/restore in 10 years. In fact, Bush has destroyed the very party that put him in power. In other words, the Republican party should be banned from any nation on this planet because its very philosophy, outlooks, policies, and nature are the ingredients for the disasters we are experiencing today, nationally and globally!
Thank you president Obama, for exercising the common sense that was completely absence in the Bush administration.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pmObama is not only cleaning up after Bushco, but also after Raygun.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pmJust do what they did in Iraq…pay off your enemies…shut out the Press…and just tell us how great things are.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pm(and after all that, still not be able to reduce Troops.)
Ya gotta love a President who understands nuance.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pmWhat no scowling about the Evil Doers? No smirks, no taunts? The speeches are certainly a vast improvement over the last administration. Let’s hope that the policies are that much more effectively managed.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pmI believe that President Obama’s approach to the Afghan war is different and intelligent. Obama has a clearer outline of the direction the war will go. The repugs that are making the futile attempt to label this as “Obama’s Vietnam” or “Obama’s War” are buffoons. They’re trying with all their might to shed themselves of Bush’s legacy of torture and failure. I suspect this criticism will increase as we get closer to 2010 elections.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pmThis strategy won’t “win” the war…but it will help stabilize the country a bit. The only hope for a relatively peaceful, stable Afghanistan is to build up the military and get Pakistan, Iran, and possibly India involved in rebuilding the country’s infrastructure.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pmMr. Obomber, since you guys on the right seem bound and determined to make this teleprompter thing an issue of some sort, can you please elaborate on what that issue actually is?
is it a bad thing to use a teleprompter?
If so, why?
Thanks so much.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:05 pmHi Mr Obomber
March 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pmSlow day?
i appreciated the way rachel described it friday night…
March 29th, 2009 at 2:20 pmif she’s ok with it, he’s getting it right…
Mr. Odumber
Where was the ‘prompter in the above video? Cogent, intelligent answers to questions, without a ‘prompter, render your silly issue moot.
The real pathetic joke; you have nothing substantive to add to the debate, so you add trivial nonsense.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:21 pmNothing relevant, as usual.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:22 pmEND THE OCCUPATIONS OF IRAQ AND AFHEGANISTAN NOW!
March 29th, 2009 at 2:40 pmOBAMA PROMISED THE END OF THE WAR IN IRAQ IF ELECTED. Instead, he says “combat troops” will be out of Iraq, however, this week we learned the the Pentagon is changing and re-branding the term “combat troops”, and the USA is keeping them right there… the only significant “CHANGE” is the name “combat troops”!
Obama is already responsible for the killing of civilians in Pakistan ‘drones’ attacks!
Where is the “CHANGE”?
Appoint a SPECIAL PROSECUTER NOW! Where is the rule of LAW?
Marie
March 29th, 2009 at 2:42 pmThere is no ‘Win’ in Afheganistan! The US is there for the Oil pipeline and military bases to control it! Any other excuse is a LIE!
barack obomber Says: Nothing important.
Your pal Bedlam Beck uses a teleprompter and it doesn’t help him because he’s still an idiot. You rethuglican trolls need to go help Boehner & Cantor create a real budget. The level of stupidity is glaring and seriously shocking. If you think your small minded comments mean anything you need to join Silly Shelly at the nuthouse for some better meds.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:57 pmbarack obomber comments=low down quackery!
sacopenapa,
March 29th, 2009 at 3:01 pmWhen I am able to read your comments, I usually find that you have very good points and I don’t disagree too much.
Where I disagree, however, is that your comments tend toward ranting and are difficult to read; and your solutions/responses, while they get to the heart of the matter, come to be seen as reactionary.
Please keep up the comments – I think you will see most of us agree with you – but try to stay calm.
semi-intelligent?
March 29th, 2009 at 3:14 pm–
Compared to what?
From David Brooks on the Newshour Friday Nite.
He is just back from a trip to Afghanistan.
“…we are a much better military at this. One thing that struck me with talking from privates to generals, counterinsurgency is now bred in their bones. And that means they know there’s no military — purely military solution.
They all want to talk about governance. They all want to talk about agriculture, about schools. They know that’s the way you win this war. So we are just a lot better at this.
And then the final thing to be said is, they much prefer the Afghan people to the Iraqi people, to be blunt about it. They think they’re more cooperative, more welcoming.”
I don’t agree with much of Mr. Brooke’s punditry…but if his REPORTING is for Real…this change in attitude is encouraging.
Cokie Roberts, also recently back Afghanistan, said …
The Afghanis aren’t Anti-American like most Iraqi’s are.
This rings true… because we Helped the Afghanis defeat the Russians….and we didn’t place deadly Sanctions on them for a Decade.
We just need to get Al Qaeda out, and then get out ourselves.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pmBeefeater Says: I’m just a hater!
Now you’re really showing just how ignorant you really are. I’m tempted to feel sorry for you! You must be one those ignorant “Bushies”. You can’t handle the intelligence level of President Obama and the First Lady Obama.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pmWhat happened? You had to drop out of high school and now you’re mad because an African-American had the opportunity that you didn’t have to become educated at Harvard??? Are you one of those types that has “entitlement syndrome”?
The joys of endless imperial American interventions around the world… Since 1898, over four million third world residents murdered, tortured, imprisoned or made homeless. (This is an admittedly a wild guess, but we slaughtered several hundred thousand Indonesians in the 1960s and millions of Vietnamese, Laotions and Cambodians as well as at least one million Iraqis in our most recent occupation).
Imagine, if three million Chinese soldiers invaded and occupied America, overthrew our government and set up a puppet government. We would be screaming bloody hell and trying by every means possible to kill the invaders and to drive them out. But since we are imperial pigs, we can never see the viewpoint of those at the receiving end of our aggression and our occupations.
You gotta love the seamless transition between the Bush occupations and the Obama occupations. And the seamless transiton between the Bush CIA drone murders in Pakistan to the Obama CIA drone murders in Pakistan. Seemless transitions we can believe in…
March 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pmbarack obomber Says:
You are an ignorant piece of garbage. We get you are too stupid to understand nuance. Anything not spelled out in bumper sticker slogans and two syllable words is going to be way over your head you simpleminded moron.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pmBoy, I see the trolls heads have exploded when Obama makes more sense in one speech then bush and his thugs did in eight years.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pmBeefeater Says:
A stupid mindless troll regurgitates idiocy on a message board. Where have we seen this before?
March 29th, 2009 at 3:50 pmJames Kay, I’ll bet you were one of those people who yelled at the top of your lungs about killing those terrorists that caused 9/11. Your boy bush went right out and attacked a country that had nothing to with 9/11, and now when Obama wants to go after those people you attack him. You trolls are not very bright or seem to know even what you want.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:54 pmWe need to disarm the enemy, cut of the sources. And sometimes that “source” circles all the back to us. A lot of the weapons and munitions used against us in both Iraq and Afghanistan came from us!
Afghanistan is a different environment, a different war, and this is going to be difficult. I’m counting on President Obama to be flexible enough to understand that this could be a long-term commitment, even though it doesn’t represent his intitial policy – and could be political suicide. He’s between that rock and hard place, although, no fault of his.
We’ve been Bush-whacked again.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pmI gotta friend teaching at the AmnU in Kabul. He got there in January. He’s a former news-paper reporter. He teaches American Studies. He blogs here.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pmover four million third world residents murdered, tortured, imprisoned or made homeless.
While our body-count in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan is probably a record for the 21st century–unless you count Congo–the 20th century was about nothing BUT slaughter, on a massive, unprecedented and usually untalked-about scale.
Here’s a thought: If everybody who was killed in wars in the 20th Century had lived to reproduce, the population of the planet could EASILY be twice what it is today…(Thank you, Dr. Malthus)
Your estimate for the casualties from blatant USer Imperialism since we finished our continental confiscations is wildly low. We killed, injured, immiserated, and made refugees out of 10 million, maybe 20 million people in SE Asia between 1954-75. That may be a low number…
March 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pmThere’s another 500lb gorilla in room which was mentioned on DK yesterday. What do we do about the opium crop ? This has long been one of the Afghan’s primary sources of income, and unemployment is very high there now. If we destroy the drug crops, we risk turning the warlords against us, and supporting the Taliban.
Personally, I favor letting them continue growing poppies, and then buying the entire crop, thus keeping it off the market. I reckon this would be cheaper in the long run.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pmfire _ant_chavis Says:
Your pal Bedlam Beck uses a teleprompter and it doesn’t help him because he’s still an idiot. !
March 29th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
There’s an excellent cartoon about this at TheZoo:
March 29th, 2009 at 5:27 pmhttp://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/its-all-about-delivery/#comments
The right wing clowns will never get it right. They are just ignorant and/or stupid.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pmOn nine-eleven, we were attacked by fifteen Saudi nationals, whose funding was mostly funneled through Dubai. Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld stood by and smirked; they didn’t raise even a little pinky finger to stop these attacks. So did we attack Saudi Arabia? No. So did we attack Dubai? No.
We were not attacked by the Afghani people. We were not attacked by the Taliban; in fact, we created the forerunners to the Taliban by arming and training the right-wing fundamentalist peasants in the early 1980s to harass the government of Afghanistan and their Soviet Union backers.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:05 pm